Marco Rubio already at work to overturn the administration’s contraception mandate

posted at 3:05 pm on January 31, 2012 by Tina Korbe

We’ve reached a new low when a senator has to present a bill to restore religious freedom — but at least we still have a senator who will introduce such legislation in the face of an overt trampling of the right to free exercise of religion. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio today will introduce “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012,” a bill that would reverse the Obama administration’s recent confirmation of its decision to force religious employers — in conflict with their religious beliefs — to provide employees with insurance that would cover contraceptives and abortifacients.

It’s impossible to overstate just how unjust the Obama administration’s decision in this matter actually is. Catholics and non-Catholics alike recognize it. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson captures the magnitude of its meaning:

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists. …

The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Why would Obama betray the religious leaders whose concerns he pretended to hear in this way? Shortly after the president met with the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops, Obama supporters expressed concern that any concession to Catholic leaders might cost him the votes of some liberal women in 2012. One of the readiest explanations for the president’s insistence on this is his unremitting desire to please his base, to retain votes, to win reelection.

Fortunately, Catholic bishops across the country have said they will not comply with this unjust law — and, now, Marco Rubio, too, has taken up the cause of religious liberty. His bill would expand the Obamacare religious exemption, which presently is so narrow as to exclude religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools, charities and businesses. It would ensure that no religious employer would be required to offer coverage in contradiction of the religious tenets the employer espouses. This bill undoubtedly faces an uphill battle in the Senate, but this is too important an issue to not address by every available means. My gratitude to Sen. Rubio for his prompt action on the matter.

But I see no compelling moral argument that would account for discriminating against any employee just because the company’s owners’ religious beliefs.

Question for Tina Korbe: if a Muslim-owned charitable organization decreed that all its female employees must scarves while at work, would it be a violation of “religious freedom” for an employee to refuse to wear the scarf?

Drew Lowell on January 31, 2012 at 4:24 PM

They may not be Catholic, but when they applied for the jobs, they knew they were working for an employer that followed Catholic values because it was a religious institution.

Just because Catholic women don’t follow their church’s principles does not mean the church has to abandon that principle. They could require a non-Catholic teacher in a parochial school to come to weekly chapel (although she wouldn’t take communion), as part of the educational mission. She can go apply to a public school if she doesn’t like it. This is similar to the recent uanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in Hosanna.

If the Muslim employer was a mosque or a school run by a mosque, yes, it probably could require such dress. If it was an electronics store or a car wash, no. A woman who doesn’t want to wear a headscarf should apply to a school not run by a mosque.

These are not Catholic car dealers or Catholic sandwich shop owners, these are institutions, schools and hospitals and charities owned by a church and identified as part of the church’s religious mission.

The Supreme Court has ruled that exactly those kinds of conflicts be settled in the favor of compelling state interests. Since the law doesn’t even apply to Catholics specifically, but to insurance providers, the case is even stronger that the Obama administration hasn’t violated the constitution.

I’m not quoting the rest of your post because I don’t quite follow your argument, which is probably my own fault. I think there’s at least enough of a gray area that Korbe should be careful about making grand pronouncements like “an overt trampling of the right to free exercise of religion.” That’s not only inaccurate, it’s insulting to the religious minorities in this country whose religious freedom actually is threatened. For instance, employees of nominally religious organizations that might find their health care gutted without the new HHS requirement in place.

RightOFLeft on January 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Sorry, but you are the incorrect one. The regulation requires ALL employers with over 50 employees to provide health insurance coverage, which policy MUST include contraception, or else pay a large fine. yes, the insurance company is paying for the contraceptives, but it uses the premiumk income from the employers to do so, therefore the Catholic organizations ARE being required to pay for services that violate their core religious beliefs. This is a clear denial of the free exercise of religion and therefore of the First Amendment.

And contraceptives are NOT “health care.” Just because HHS has chiosen to define them as “preventative care” which is subject to the zero copay rule of Obamacare, doesn’t make it the truth. Pregnancy is not a disease.

I’m not counting on any president to return us to fiscal sanity. Taking the Senate and House are equally, if not more important than the presidency.

As far as the candidates go … only one it seemed had the balls to fight to reduce entitlements and balance the budget, and compromise with a democrat president to get it. Do I think Gingrich will make the effort? Yeah, I do. Do I also think he needs a crack team to constantly keep him grounded? Yeah, I do.

darwin on January 31, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I agree with you darwin, with this one point. As long as a President does the run around of Congress issuing E.O.’s then yes the Presidency is important. Also to veto bills coming from the House/Senate that reduce our freedoms and increase our debts.

God forbid insurance providers have some say over what they will provide to the public.

Literally, if Rubio has his way.

Seriously? Defrauding them of what, $10 – $20 bucks a month? Abortions and pregnancy are significantly more expensive to insure. This is a total straw man.

Esthier on January 31, 2012 at 4:39 PM

-It’s not a straw man; I’m not watering down anyone’s argument to make things easier on myself.

-In this economy, 10-20$ a month is no small change for a lot of people. Also, contraceptives like birth control are sometimes prescribed to treat serious medical conditions. What’s the dollar value of that to the few women who need it?

-The law doesn’t only require covering contraceptives, it requires covering “all FDA approved treatments.” There’s more than $10-20 a month at stake (that actually is a straw man, btw).

Question for Tina Korbe: if a Muslim-owned charitable organization decreed that all its female employees must scarves while at work, would it be a violation of “religious freedom” for an employee to refuse to wear the scarf?

Drew Lowell on January 31, 2012 at 4:24 PM

That’s not the same. That would be forcing employees to adhere to their religion, which may or may not be legal depending on the organization.

But then, you’re talking about the same thing, only from the employer’s side, forcing those who employ 50 or more people to adhere to someone else’s religious beliefs.

The employee in question can always find another job that will offer the kind of medical insurance he/she wants. There’s no religious freedom issue here. The employer can’t force you not to have sex outside of wedlock, but that doesn’t mean it’s required to support your behavior.

The Supreme Court has ruled that exactly those kinds of conflicts be settled in the favor of compelling state interests. Since the law doesn’t even apply to Catholics specifically, but to insurance providers, the case is even stronger that the Obama administration hasn’t violated the constitution.

RightOFLeft on January 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM

No, actually, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the First Amendment liberty, IIRC. (But then I’ve only been a lawyer for over 30 years, and don’t do much con law nowadays, except when I teach philosophy of law at a local college.)

All the religious institutions want is that the providers be allowed to offer alternative policies. The institutions must provide some coverage (under penalty of a fine); all they want is an alternative policy. Call it “choice” of policies, if you will.

Sebelius could let carriers issue alternative policies, but she won’t.

-It’s not a straw man; I’m not watering down anyone’s argument to make things easier on myself.

No, straw men are fake arguments that you create in order to tear down. Maybe I didn’t use it properly, but the idea that people will abuse their First Amendment right isn’t one that carries a lot of weight with me.

-In this economy, 10-20$ a month is no small change for a lot of people. Also, contraceptives like birth control are sometimes prescribed to treat serious medical conditions. What’s the dollar value of that to the few women who need it?

No, you’ve reversed my point. I agree that $10 – $20 is a lot to someone who needs it. It’s not, however, a lot to an insurance company, and it’s significantly less than covering pregnancy, abortion, etc.

Meaning, this is not a cost saving measure for any insurance company.

-The law doesn’t only require covering contraceptives, it requires covering “all FDA approved treatments.” There’s more than $10-20 a month at stake (that actually is a straw man, btw).

RightOFLeft on January 31, 2012 at 4:50 PM

And what other FDA approved treatments would be subject to a religious exemption?

Rubio isn’t invalidating the requirement to cover FDA approved treatments. He’s only seeking to provide conscientious objectors a way out.

Agreed, and I will be calling and emailing Sen. Casey to demand that he co-sponsor the bill and ask Harry Reid to bring it to a vote.

rockmom on January 31, 2012 at 4:34 PM

And if Reid follows his normal pattern and tables it, then what?
Or if he does bring it up for a vote and it fails to pass, then what? Back to square one but worse in my opinion. Since we’ve established that what we are voting on with this bill that Rubio is going to introduce is acknowledging the HHS & E.O. was vaid to begin with.

I still don’t think this dictate by HHS & especially B.O’s E.O. can be reversed.

For instance, employees of nominally religious organizations that might find their health care gutted without the new HHS requirement in place.

RightOFLeft on January 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Since when do we have the right to force our employers to give us insurance that covers everything we want covered? When did we even get the right to demand that jobs provide us with health insurance at all?

Fair enough, but they’re also one of the largest religions in the country. We’re pluralistic enough that every religion is technically a minority.

… The regulation requires ALL employers with over 50 employees to provide health insurance coverage, which policy MUST include contraception, or else pay a large fine. …
rockmom on January 31, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I believe the 50 employee requirement was in place before the HHS ruling. I’m just going by what lifesitenews (of all places) reported about the ruling applying to insurance providers. Like I said, it might be a gray area. If someone takes the case to the Supreme Court, just don’t expect the courts to see it as simply.

What the hell is your problem exactly with this you religious losers? Is it because your precious made up skyfriend with magical powers called ‘god’ said something about abortion in that toilet paper carrier called the bible? If so taht is about the most dumb ass reason reason imaginable. how about you schmucks stop being afraid of fairy tales and learn to think for yourselves, the world would be better off.

It’s not like any of you liars actually step up with your “christian compassion and charity” to take of kids forced to live horrendous lives because of being unwanted, who in turn perpetuate the same pathology. Hell’s Bells you idiotic religonuts this unprecedented drop in crime we are experiencing right now is DUE to abortion, we’ve managed to remove generations of criminals from prisons via the use of abortion.

If you are talking about Bob Casey…he is ALL for contraception. He is a pretend Catholic…and a pretend Pro-lifer.

vitaatcaritas on January 31, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Exactly. And he’s always run on his dad’s reputation and the family name. Dad really was pro-life, and was not allowed to give a pro-life address at the 1996 Dem convention.

Junior has the IQ of a potted plant, and would be lucky to be a parking lot attendant if he was Bob Nobody.

I don’t know who the GOP candidate will be, but I hope the person hammers Casey with his Obamacare votes. Junior is relying on the “social justice” argument with Catholics, but the bishops consider the proection of innocent human life more fundamental.

Ticking off the bishops is not a good idea for any Catholic politician.

Prescription of birth control pills as a treatment for other conditions is not covered by this regulation. That IS a straw man.

Oral contraceptives are not the only way to prevent pregnancy.

rockmom on January 31, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I don’t understand why you seem to be missing the issue here. It is usurping our Constitutional and Bill of Rights. Not how or what procedure or method they use to accomplish this. They have no RIGHT to do what they are trying to do. THAT is the issue.

Since when do we have the right to force our employers to give us insurance that covers everything we want covered? When did we even get the right to demand that jobs provide us with health insurance at all?

Esthier on January 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM

“Everything we want covered” is different from “all FDA-approved treatments.”

No, straw men are fake arguments that you create in order to tear down.

I thought that’s what I said, just in a different way.

Meaning, this is not a cost saving measure for any insurance company.

That depends on how many people the company covers. Insurance companies are ruthlessly cheap (which is a good thing, for the most part). I also think you have to take into account the effect on the customer, which is, “do I accept inferior coverage or do I quit the only job I might be able to get in this crappy economy and hope for something better?.”

And what other FDA approved treatments would be subject to a religious exemption?

Rubio isn’t invalidating the requirement to cover FDA approved treatments. He’s only seeking to provide conscientious objectors a way out.

Esthier on January 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Depends on the religious organization, which are easy enough to invent. In other words, any FDA-approved treatment could be exempted from coverage if contraception can.

yeah the rhythm method is wonderful and pull and prey always works right?

Your Mamma loves me on January 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM

With anyone else, I’d assume this is just a misspelling. But someone with your infinite wisdom would never do that, and I could easily see you biting the head off of any partner who lets you get that close.

“Everything we want covered” is different from “all FDA-approved treatments.”

Yes, I do understand that. But again, where did I get the right to demand any coverage?

I thought that’s what I said, just in a different way.

I took watered down to mean, “my argument, just weaker.” Whereas I was using strawman as an argument that maybe no one is making in any way shape or form.

Not sure there’s a big difference anyway.

That depends on how many people the company covers.

I guess, but if they’re covering women of child bearing years and if they MUST cover pregnancy, etc., then I don’t really care how many people they’re covering. Birth control is still cheaper.

There’s no cost savings in eliminating coverage of something that will prevent a much greater medical expense. And really, that’s the same reason (aside from his re-election) Obama wants it covered anyway, as a cost saving measure.

Insurance companies are ruthlessly cheap (which is a good thing, for the most part). I also think you have to take into account the effect on the customer, which is, “do I accept inferior coverage or do I quit the only job I might be able to get in this crappy economy and hope for something better?.”

OK, but that’s what many of us face already. My husband doesn’t have insurance through his company. I do. So even though we tend to like the idea of a parent staying home if/when we have kids, unless things change, it’s not happening. He makes enough to support us, but it’s impossible to get maternity coverage without being in a group plan.

I don’t like that, but I don’t believe my rights have been violated. Do you?

Depends on the religious organization, which are easy enough to invent. In other words, any FDA-approved treatment could be exempted from coverage if contraception can.

RightOFLeft on January 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Except that’s not how religious exemptions currently work. I can’t just decide that it’s against my religion to wear anything but PJ’s to work and force the company to adhere to my beliefs. It would be incredible, sure, but that’s naive thinking at best.

He was better than the alternative last election, but that doesn’t say much, and it certainly doesn’t say he’s good.

Scott H on January 31, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I’m have my doubts about him also. He came out pretty quick twice now against Newt on behalf of Romney. Haven’t seen any criticism against Romney from him tho. Too much Establishment for my tastes and this wanting to introduce a bill isn’t smart; politically maybe and that speaks for itself.

It’s impossible to overstate just how unjust important the Obama administration’s decision in this matter actually is. Catholics and non-Catholics alike recognize it. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson captures the magnitude of its meaning …

Yep, you can hear it all over the Catholic universe, the grievous wounds inflicted by having to pay for someone else’s condoms. I’m sure Jesus is outraged, too.

RightOfLeft: I might point out that Roman Catholicism IS a minority religion in this country, particularly if you count ‘Catholic’ vs. ‘non-Catholic’.

Scott H on January 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Your data are wrong: Consider this about Catholicism in the US:
“According to a new 2011 study by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, “The US Catholic population is currently 77.7 million.”[2] The United States has the fourth largest Catholic population in the world, after Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines.”

Not exactly a minority religion, or one that is fading away with time….

I read that there are many folks on this thread who are of the “who cares” variety. This power grab by Obammy is outrageous. If allowed to stand, it will be harmful to all Americans no matter if your Catholic or not. It is a violation of the 1st amendment. And it applies to all religious institutions. My understanding is that there are 3 choices for these institutions. 1) Comply 2) Pay a fine for non-complianace or 3) shut down. The first 2 options will never happen. #3 is very possible. How sad. There are many in the US who rely on charities(as in those run by the Catholic Church) for social services. Apparently, Obammy wants folks to be enslaved by our government for ever. He doesn’t want any one to stand on their own 2 feet.

Except that’s not how religious exemptions currently work. I can’t just decide that it’s against my religion to wear anything but PJ’s to work and force the company to adhere to my beliefs. It would be incredible, sure, but that’s naive thinking at best.

So I’m not sure why you think this would suddenly work that way.

Esthier on January 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM

What I was trying to say is that’s how I’d like to keep it. I think that the argument that the HHS requirement is unconstitutional opens the door for the kind of mischief you describe (paraphrasing Scalia, every woman becoming a law unto her PJ-wearing self).

What the hell is your problem exactly with this you religious losers? Is it because your precious made up skyfriend with magical powers called ‘god’ said something about abortion in that toilet paper carrier called the bible? If so taht is about the most dumb ass reason reason imaginable. how about you schmucks stop being afraid of fairy tales and learn to think for yourselves, the world would be better off.

It’s not like any of you liars actually step up with your “christian compassion and charity” to take of kids forced to live horrendous lives because of being unwanted, who in turn perpetuate the same pathology. Hell’s Bells you idiotic religonuts this unprecedented drop in crime we are experiencing right now is DUE to abortion, we’ve managed to remove generations of criminals from prisons via the use of abortion.

LOL. I think it’s a real person, but oh, brother!! The ignore key is what I refer to when I want to skip a comment that isn’t worth replying to:-) I forgot my sarc tag!!

bluefox on January 31, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Sorry, I was kinda playing. You’re right honestly, but I kinda enjoy messing with people like that when they’re that 2D. I mean, who can even take that seriously? It would be sad if anyone actually got caught up in it though.

Yep, you can hear it all over the Catholic universe, the grievous wounds inflicted by having to pay for someone else’s condoms. I’m sure Jesus is outraged, too.

bifidis on January 31, 2012 at 5:56 PM

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
– Thomas Jefferson

So, per Jefferson… you’re a sinful, tyrannical creature. Not that your ilk cares what the Founders think; all the more reason why the cancer you carry and try to spread must be excised from the body politic.

What I was trying to say is that’s how I’d like to keep it. I think that the argument that the HHS requirement is unconstitutional opens the door for the kind of mischief you describe (paraphrasing Scalia, every woman becoming a law unto her PJ-wearing self).

RightOFLeft on January 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM

You might want to read the full opinion to which you refer. You’re not paraphrasing Scalia, you’re distorting him.

The First Amendment allows broad liberty in which religious practices are allowed. It is the practice of several religions to engage in charitable work, i.e., hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, etc. These activities are an extension of their worship. The charities are owned by the religious groups, or a religious order within that group.

Anyone who applies for a job knows that there may be certain activities that are not allowed. A religious college, for example, can require the faculty to attend chapel, to sign a statement promising not to drink or smoke, or to belong to a church that is in communion within the college’s tradition. Yes, even if it is the math or econimics teacher. They know what they’re getting into whenh they apply for the job.

When the women apply to a Catholic institution, they know what the church’s teaching is. They know they are working in the church’s mission, and are representative of that religious mission. They know they should not expect contraceptive or sterilization coverage in their insurance. If they don’t like this, they can apply elsewhere.

Sebelius refuses to let the Catholic institutions buy coverage that provides for health care with the exception of the medicines and services that violate Catholic doctrine. Sebelius refuses to let the insurance companies sell these policies.

Yep, you can hear it all over the Catholic universe, the grievous wounds inflicted by having to pay for someone else’s condoms. I’m sure Jesus is outraged, too.

bifidis on January 31, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Pretty sure condoms aren’t covered. In fact, men have severely limited contraception options compared to what women receive. They should certainly sue to make sure they’re not being discriminated against here.

Hell’s Bells you idiotic religonuts this unprecedented drop in crime we are experiencing right now is DUE to abortion, we’ve managed to remove generations of criminals from prisons via the use of abortion.

Your Mamma loves me on January 31, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Wow! Outside of being an offensive dolt, you do realize that you are advocating the murder of innocent children as a form of crime prevention right? What’s next? Maybe we can eradicate those pesky jews, and them homos, and how about them mentally retarded kids? Put them in the ovens, it’ll be a much better world, right?

My “made up skyfriend with magical powers called ‘god’” actually does hve miraculous powers and I will pray to him to use them with you.

Yes, even if it is the math or econimics teacher. They know what they’re getting into whenh they apply for the job.

Wethal on January 31, 2012 at 6:25 PM

True, but those institutions do have to prove that religion is a core component of the job. Discrimination is illegal except in those instances where it is necessary to perform basic job functions. That’s why it’s OK to discriminate against men when hiring strippers for Baby Dolls, even though it may not be OK to discriminate against men when hiring waiters at Hooters.

True, but those institutions do have to prove that religion is a core component of the job.

Esthier on January 31, 2012 at 6:46 PM

No, they don’t. Check out the websites of the following colleges, for example, on what is required of their employees, regardless of whether religion is a core component of a particular job:

Calvin College

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Liberty University

One of my friends applied for a philosophy job (not in the religion department and not philosophy of religion; he was a logician) at one of these. He was handed a doctrinal statement at the interview and asked if he could agree with it as part of his employment.

The University of the South (Sewanee) requires all faculty and students to attend chapel. Sewanee women must wear skirts or dresses; no pants.

True, but those institutions do have to prove that religion is a core component of the job.

Esthier on January 31, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Check out the websites of the following colleges on what is required of their employees, regardless of whether religion is a core component of a particular job:

Calvin College

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Liberty University

One of my friends applied for a philosophy job (not in the religion department and not philosophy of religion; he was a logician) at one of these. He was handed a doctrinal statement at the interview and asked if he could agree with it as part of his employment.

The University of the South (Sewanee) requires all faculty and students to attend chapel. Sewanee women must wear skirts or dresses; no pants.

It’s always been my understanding that teachers, regardless of their subject, are considered minsters of a sort at these religious institutions. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m 90% certain that the law is relatively flexible on that but that they still have to make the case that the discrimination is necessary to properly fulfill the duties of the job.

It doesn’t matter that your friend only wanted to teach philosophy. It’s a religious school and I suppose the reasoning could go that students will look to him as an authority figure and that it would be detrimental to the purpose of the organization if he disagreed with and taught against their core principles.

I’ve just read through this entire thread and I have to say that I’m disheartened and confused. While I agree that offering up a bill to “restore” religious freedom seems unreal in this country, I have to say that in a sense I understand the thought. I was born and raised a Catholic, I used birth control in my younger days, but am (and have always been) totally opposed to abortion. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but once that baby is conceived, I would never condone “getting rid” of the “inconvenience”. Government has no place in our personal and/or religious lives. Why is it OK for Obama to make an EO about this? Where are all the “church and state” screamers on this issue? It is because of the intrusion of the state on “the church” (and there are many, not just catholic) that this just smells so totally wrong to me.

How does that saying go? First they came for the Catholics and I said nothing … or something like that. Apart from being outrageous in itself, this power grab if allowed to stand sets a precedent for even more tyranny, kind of like Obamacare in general.

We’ve reached a new low when a senator has to present a bill to restore religious freedom — but at least we still have a senator who will introduce such legislation in the face of an overt trampling of the right to free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately, this same Senator repeatedly comes down against free speech.

What the hell is your problem exactly with this you religious losers? Is it because your precious made up skyfriend with magical powers called ‘god’ said something about abortion in that toilet paper carrier called the bible? If so taht is about the most dumb ass reason reason imaginable. how about you schmucks stop being afraid of fairy tales and learn to think for yourselves, the world would be better off.

It’s not like any of you liars actually step up with your “christian compassion and charity” to take of kids forced to live horrendous lives because of being unwanted, who in turn perpetuate the same pathology. Hell’s Bells you idiotic religonuts this unprecedented drop in crime we are experiencing right now is DUE to abortion, we’ve managed to remove generations of criminals from prisons via the use of abortion.

Your Mamma loves me on January 31, 2012 at 5:03 PM

doesnt this kind of blatant bigotry violate terms of service? it seems like border line hate speech to me. where is the ban hammer A.P.?

Your first paragraph is impossibly ignorant of the Constitution. Go back and read the first amendment. This mandate prevents the free exercise of religion by mandating religious persons in religious establishments forcibly pay for services strictly forbidden in their religious code.

Your second paragraph is demonstrably untrue, and in fact religious people would be able to help more people if angry atheist malcontents weren’t busy trying to sue us every time you think one of our institutions has violated one of your precious, airy-fairy rights like marriage based on love of adults rather than environment of children or rights to slaughter the innocent for your convenience provided they’ve not yet left the birth canal. It is you and your lot who are the troglodytic barnacles on society’s rear end, so why don’t you wash your ignorance spewing mouth out with soap, get an education, learn some manners, and come back when you have something of value to say.

Better yet, leave and never return. It’s obvious any effort on you would be wasted. You are proud of being a foul-mouthed brat of no consequence to anyone.